File talk:Alpha Beta Quadrant Overview star chart.jpg
Star What justification is there for taking all these locations (not just Vulcan but ‎Andoria, ‎Coridan, Risa, Organia,...) and assuming they're not the known locations but stars with the same name? -- Capricorn (talk) 23:28, October 30, 2017 (UTC) :A lot of them have alternates, for example Risa (Epsilon Ceti). Epsilon Ceti is clearly a stellar designation, strongly implying that all the points are star names. -- UncertainError (talk) 23:32, October 30, 2017 (UTC) ::Or that the planet/important landmark comes first and than its star in brackets. 23:43, October 30, 2017 (UTC) :That doesn't explain labels like Gamma Hromi. Or Ramatis, when the important planet is Ramatis III. -- UncertainError (talk) 23:46, October 30, 2017 (UTC) :::I have the Star Trek: Star Charts, upon which the star chart seen in the episode is based. The chart, with slight modifications, like some words dropped or stars omitted, is a copy of pp. 62-63. Other than the outposts, starbases, and Rura Penthe, which is regarded as a planetoid/rogue planet, the chart depicts the locations of stars. This is confirmed by the "Key to Charts" on p. 96 of the book.--Memphis77 (talk) 23:52, October 30, 2017 (UTC) :::One other thing, you might be wondering about the size of the stars, why some are bigger or why some are smaller? This has to do with the magnitude of the stars. The larger the size, the brighter the star is. Again, from p. 96 of the source mentioned above.--Memphis77 (talk) 23:56, October 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::According to the key of charts, the labels aren't stars, but star systems. But all in all it's a bit confusing, because the labels are futher seperated into categories like "UFP members" (which by definition can only be planets) and "Uninhabited" (which only makes sense if planets are meant). The brackets are "Alternate names or Affiliations". ( 00:09, October 31, 2017 (UTC)) :::Yep, it is confusing. When I was doing the pages, it came to me in the cases where there is no question, how confusing it must be to live in the Star Trek universe. We have systems where there is a star, a system, and a planet with the same name, like Alpha Centauri. The only way to know which is which is by context. Then, there is the case of Andor/Andoria. What a mess!! The question becomes, how would the average audience member, not a person immersed in the universe, interpret the chart? I believe they would interpret the labels as the names of the stars. This is the perspective I worked from when doing the pages.--Memphis77 (talk) 00:30, October 31, 2017 (UTC) But p. 96 of the Star Charts wasn't seen on screen, and in fact nothing in the Star Charts has been made canon by this, only the derived map as seen. Extra context provided only by the Star Charts shouldn't really figure in our logic. Here's an alternative approach, just a proposal. Given that we know that some of the stuff on the map aren't stars, and there's no legend establishing stuff as stars (on screen), how about instead of asuming that all of them must be stars just taking them as stellar objects of interest. When you see Vulcan, you asume that's a listing of the planet Vulcan, when you see new places like Beta Rigel you'd asume that's some place called Beta Rigel (of unknown nature), when you see Risa (Epsilon Ceti) you'd asume that's the Risa we know and love with an asociated star, when you see Qo'nos (Kronos, Kling), you'd asume that's the Klingon homeworld with what appear to be alternate names), when you see Ramatis you'd asume that's an object related to the Ramatis III we already known, and so on - There's no one approach (like calling them all stars or star systems) that is going to work for every object, but caution with a dash of common sense will get you very far. Doesn't that make more sense? I mean, that's kinda how we've handled every other map thus far, plenty of planet articles note that their name was spotted on a map. And I know the frustration of working with this kind of stuff btw, I've been there. But ultimately there's no squaring these circles even if there logically from an in-universe perspective maybe should be, you can only work with what you're given. -- Capricorn (talk) 00:40, October 31, 2017 (UTC) :::I spent many hours on writing these pages. I do not look forward to revisiting them for a while. If there is any page you have a disagreement with, there are options for you to pursue in getting the page changed to your satisfaction. Peace.--Memphis77 (talk) 00:51, October 31, 2017 (UTC) :Capricorn, how is all of that assuming better than the obvious interpretation that the dots are stars and their labels are the stars' names? And if you want common sense, nobody would ever make a map like that where the same symbols and typography can mean all sorts of different things. -- UncertainError (talk) 00:55, October 31, 2017 (UTC) @UncertainError: I've tried to give a lot of examples because there's a lot of cases and they're already inconsistent in what the symbols and typography mean to begin with, but personally I don't see that much real assuming in them. The logic basically boils down to : don't asume anything about a location, unless there's a specific reason to because of something we already knew about it. @Memphis: Please don't take this the wrong way, but revisiting large amounts of pages kinda is something that might happen every now and then when your process is to make a determination and then change hundreds and hundreds of pages based on that over a very short period. That being said, in this case there's not that much that I would have done differently (Basically just asume that when the map says something like Vulcan or Krios, that's a reference to the object we already know, which in practice would mean putting up a manageable number of pages up for a merge I suppose, and change an equally manegeable amount of categories from star to Astronomical object). And nor is this about an expectation of mine for you to put in work to "fix" stuff according to my personal vision. (also if your concern is simply that you don't want to revisit the pages, don't worry, I'll do it. Just not as fast :p) You say there's options for me to persue, but well, this talk page, that's the option - I'm not some dictatorial admin, all I can do is can state my case and see if other people think it makes sense. But this is the point where things start to get difficult for me. You're disengaging, vaguely suggesting I should just do whatever, without your input. Maybe I should mirror your approach by admitting this: I genuinely don't know how to handle that, it seems to break the consensus seeking model. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:58, October 31, 2017 (UTC) :The map is completely consistent with all the circles being stars and the cap label beside them the names of those stars (I would argue that to be clear authorial intent). There's not a single one of those labels that absolutely cannot be the name of a star. I see no sense in an interpretation where one circle named "Krios" refers to the planet (the important bit of canon) and another circle is named "Ramatis" instead of "Ramatis III" (the important bit of canon) for some mysterious reason. I won't comment on this further; unfortunately I can't see us agreeing on this. -- UncertainError (talk) 03:09, October 31, 2017 (UTC) That's the standard? They're to be treated differently from other maps because none can absolutely not be a star? Fine, as long as Sherman's planet can be the name of Sherman's planet's star. -- Capricorn (talk) 04:02, October 31, 2017 (UTC)